Thursday, July 12, 2007

consequences of victory

“Rav XXXX was reported to have said after the [6 day] war—when the entire Jewish world was celebrating with such great euphoria and joy at what had transpired—with great tears and emotion, that as a consequence of this victory, Jews would be stabbed on the streets of Israel’s cities.”

I guess this is true – has we lost the 6 day war then there would probably no Jews (c”v) left to stab and no Jewish cities to speak of.

(I’m not giving a link or filling in XXX because I have no way to verify whether XXX really said something like this and I do not wish to be motzi la’az on a gadol b’yisrael because someone uses a story to support their distorted viewpoint.)

7 comments:

Certainly yeish raglayim ladavar that the author's viewpoint is distorted, but can one dispute the statement that more Jews were stabbed, shot, and blown up on the streets of Jewish cities after the 6-day war than before? (The national danger, of course, was more severe beforehand, but more Jews still died in "peacetime" after than before.) While winning the war had great benefits for us, and while losing the war, r"l, would have been catastrophic, we may have been better off from a here-and-now perspective before the war, even allowing that it may have brought us closer to the geulah. Yaisi v'lo echminei!

I do not dispute that more Jews are stabbed - but my whole point is that looking at things so shortsightedly is a distortion, because the alternative to was losing the war and unthinkable destruction. If you mean by "here and now" that it would have been better to not have to make such a difficult choice, so be it, but such speculation belongs in the world of fanstasy.

A Lubavitcher recently tried to use the fact that Rav Shach may have said such a thing to bash Rav Shach. On the contrary, I think he makes a good point, in a way, because by taking Eastern Jerusalem we have given fuel to the Arab fury against Zionism. Although one cannot say for certain that if this did not occur, the Arabs would not have used something else a justification for their attacks against Jews. But first and foremost, we must verify whether Rav Shach actually said such a thing because I'm sure that half the statements ascribed to him were never really uttered by his holy mouth. I told this Lubavitch fellow that it is very likely that Rav Shach never really said any of those anti-Lubavitch remarks that are ascribed to him (for example that wine of a lubavitcher is yayin nesech), rather the students of Ponovezh just wanted to rouse trouble. Indeed we find in present times, the bachurim in ponovezh created a fight between themselves over who should be the Rosh Yeshiva, but the Rosh Yeshivas themselves are inconspicuosly left out of the dispute. But anyways, was the point of your post to discuss the outcome of the 6 Day War or was it to discuss people saying controversial things or was is to discuss people being attributed controversial statements that they might have not said?

Guys, I never mentioned who said this precisely because I cannot verify what was said - what it more important is the *perception* that this viewpoint is correct, which IMHO it isn't. R' Chaim, the Arab fury againt Zionism existed before the war - why do you think it had to be fought in the first place??? And please don't get started down the road of, "If only we did not have a state they would not be mad at us..." (I've heard this one before too).

Are there really any grown-ups who honestly believe that gedolim have nevu'ah? Seichel hayoshor, 100%. Daas Torah, 100%. Maybe there's even a chiyuv of doing what they advise because of of the mitvah and hanhogas hachaim of emunas chachomim and kovod and moroh of gedolei Torah. But when it comes to predicting what will happen in an olom shekulo sheker instead of what ought to happen ahl pi hashkofo, the record is spotty, at best. Have we learned nothing from the pre-WWII statements of many gedolim?